What the F- minus was he thinking? We've got a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq and a genocide in Darfur that we're doing nothing about and he's trying to LURE Iran into a war? Can anyone make sense of this for me?
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070924/twl-us-iran-israel-nuclear-military-7e07afd.html
2007-09-24 17:14:17 · 6 answers · asked by It's Your World, Change It 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Julio, I sited a source from YahooNews.
smsmith, did you ever hear of the word "did?" it's the past tense of do. my question was why DID cheney want to lure iran into a war by using israel? i didn't say he still wants to.
2007-09-24 17:27:38 · update #1
Man, I really AM "bored with you." The article is a reliable source. Why just because it's from Singapore it can't be true? That's just ridiculous. The quote "A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." by Leon Festinger would seem to apply to you. Put your BS partisan politics aside and TRY to read the article from an unbiased point of view. Then ask yourself WHY did Cheney want this other war? STILL waiting for a good answer though...
2007-09-25 02:33:18 · update #2
You can always afford another war, as long as somebody else's money is going to pay for it.
2007-09-24 17:18:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
it would desire to look extreme now although that is going to blow over,u . s . defense force purely isn't deployed interior the Persian mountains, the Terrain isn't acceptable for mechanized conflict, the Iranian military is superb and formidable and on their own soil Fanatical! a minimum of three hundred,000 u . s . defense force workers are nevertheless interior Iraqi or in the present day helping them, what as properly the air stress might desire to the u . s . attack with?,The North Korean and Taiwan straits must be a extra realist foreign places relatives concern for the u . s . administration to sparkling up. they'll in no way invade Iran they haven't any contingency plans for invasion, and the Secretary of state replaced into making overtures and sweeteners to Iranian foreign places minister those days and inspite of the Iranian Rhetoric, they don't want a conflict and the final element the worldwide desires now could be a relief interior the worlds oil grant ,as a conflict could halt Iranian oil production and sluggish the worldwide financial growth we are actually experiencing .with a view to three all of it up that is not going the u . s . and Iran will bypass to conflict.
2016-11-06 07:30:39 · answer #2 · answered by goerdt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he is an evil genius, much like Simon Barsinister of the Underdog cartoons! He can control the weather! He can whip up a hurricane with the snap of his fingers! He's my hero!! You better watch it or he'll fill your face and neck with "Buckshot" like he did to that guy that started questioning his motives.......or maybe they were friends, who knows? All I know is you better watch your back! He could be lurking around any corner or hiding behind any Bush. (Bush! Ha ha!! Get it?) Now go soak your head!
2007-09-24 17:24:52 · answer #3 · answered by Jimmy Pete 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Short answer. He didn't.
ROFLMAO Singapore Yahoo news. This is your cite? Did you know there are also nuclear silo's on the moon? Get real. As for Darfur, who cares? You libs sure do pick and choose your causes.
2007-09-24 17:49:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the statement said he HAD CONSIDERED IT. Which means if you read the story that hes no longer considering it.
2007-09-24 17:20:40 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your premise has no support.
2007-09-24 17:18:01 · answer #6 · answered by julio_slsc 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋